Comment by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7

Comment by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 9 days ago

I am not trying to derail. I am just pointing out the fact that you have no convincing evidence to claim what you are stating.

To me it reads as, "MKULTRA had elements that were universally recognized as being ethically unsound, so we can't talk about it in a neutral light at all".

I think this is a terrible dichomatic way of thinking that supplants neutral interpretation.

Furthermore, I think an appeal to the reputation of the source of information equates to an ad hominem attack and presents no substantive argument against said information.

neilv 9 days ago

I assume that most people who'd heard of MKUltra think it was some combination of insane, horrifying, and unconscionable, and therefore a big negative mark on the history of the CIA.

When the publisher of the article was also the actor in that scandal, I don't think it's ad hominem to wonder whether they're trying to whitewash the term.

Are you saying that MKUltra was actually so much more than the scandalous parts, to the extent that the CIA can just throw the term as innocuous into fluff pieces, as if there weren't overwhelmingly negative associations?

Reply View 2 replies

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 8 days ago

> When the publisher of the article was also the actor in that scandal, I don't think it's ad hominem to wonder whether they're trying to whitewash the term.
No one working at the CIA today was there during MKULTRA, which was founded around the time Eisenhower was elected.
> Are you saying that MKUltra was actually so much more than the scandalous parts, to the extent that the CIA can just throw the term as innocuous into fluff pieces, as if there weren't overwhelmingly negative associations?
Again, I am saying that you don't know or have not presented convincing evidence otherwise, and to me, it sounds like you are just saying speculative shit.

Reply View | 1 reply
- neilv 7 days ago
  
  1. It's an organization. The organization is the one with the tarnished reputation.
  2. The Wikipedia article is full of scandal. And I have never heard anything about the topic that's not scandal (except for this one very strange reference, which is the original point of this thread). I don't know why you're going to the mat to dispute that. But if you're not done, you'd be better off getting the Wikipedia article updated, because it's like you're derailing critical discussion with textbook sabotage tactics (whether or not that's intentional).
  
  Reply View | 0 replies